In the case, Curie v. Misa the term was defined, “A valuable reflection within the meaning of the law may exist either in one right, interest, leniency, prejudice, loss or liability, given, suffered or assumed by the other.” Timko was a member of the board of directors of a school. He recommended that the school buy a building for a considerable amount of money and encourage administrators to vote for the purchase and promised to help with the purchase and, at the end of five years, pay the purchase price minus the down payment. Timko died after four years. The school continued his succession, which defended on the grounds that there was no quid pro quo for the promise. Timko was promised or nothing was given in return, and the purchase of the building was not of direct use to him (which would have made the promise enforceable as a unilateral contract). The court ruled that Timko`s estate was held liable after Solator Estoppel`s three-way test. Estate of Timko v. Oral Roberts Evangelistic Assn., 215 N.W.2d 750 (Mich. a) A promises to give, without consideration, B rs. This is a non-concluding agreement.
A contract without consideration is non-applicable because it is legally unenforceable. “Reflection” means that each party must provide something valuable. Read 3 min The restatement allows, in certain circumstances, the application of contracts on past considerations. Section 86, “Promise for Benefit Received,” states that English law and the Indian Contract Act state that review is essential to an enforceable contract. It is an act or abstinence by the promised or another person, at the request of the promisor. The reflection may have passed, future or executor. In accordance with the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the definition of consideration in section 2 d), reflection may be made by “the promisor or any other person” as long as it is done “at the request of the promisor.” Thus, if the promiseor has no objection, the consideration of a promise or another person may differ from that of another person. There are some cases where contracts are enforceable without consideration.
Contract law defines “reflection” as an answer to the question “How do you benefit from the performance of the contract?” Both parties must take into account the fact that the agreement is legally binding. For example, if you buy a jacket from your favorite store, the garment is the consideration you will receive while your payment is the consideration that will be received from the store. Under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, there are no exceptions similar to the common law, but some exceptions are established. It says that an agreement without consideration is null and void, unless there are some exceptions to the counterparty requirement. In the common law, the old one does not count, but in these cases, no consideration is necessary: if a prescribed promise is revived, if a void obligation is asserted, if a promise is negatively based on a promise (i.e. it is a promise) or if a court simply finds that the lender has a moral obligation to keep the promise.